john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) (07/27/88)
Has anyone installed PC-DOS 4.0 yet ? I saw an interesting blurb that stated that if you have larger than a 32MB disk, "share" will be installed automatically. Now I know a new feature of 4.0 is to support disk partitions larger than 32 MB but........ Is the new version truely allowing more than 65535 total sectors or is it playing some "hidden" games with the "share" facility to make you beleive you have one big partition ? Any information is appreciated. John -- John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john 1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: wa3wbu!john@uunet.UU.NET Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (07/27/88)
In article <611@wa3wbu.UUCP>, john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: }disk partitions larger than 32 MB but........ Is the new version truely }allowing more than 65535 total sectors or is it playing some "hidden" If it uses the COMPAQ DOS 3.31 method, it truly allows more than 64K sectors, but loses compatibility with a lot of disk-maintenance software because the INT 25h and INT 26h direct-read/direct-write interface has changed. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I |Ducharm's Axiom: If you view your problem closely enough claimed something?| you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.
thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) (07/27/88)
In article <611@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: > > Has anyone installed PC-DOS 4.0 yet ? I saw an interesting blurb >that stated that if you have larger than a 32MB disk, "share" will be >installed automatically. Now I know a new feature of 4.0 is to support >disk partitions larger than 32 MB but........ Is the new version truely >allowing more than 65535 total sectors or is it playing some "hidden" >games with the "share" facility to make you beleive you have one big >partition ? Any information is appreciated. > > > John What I would like to know is if they will allow for 2K clusters. Large partitions sound nice but I am not looking forward to 8K blocks!
seeger@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Charles Seeger) (07/27/88)
In article <611@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: > > Has anyone installed PC-DOS 4.0 yet ? I saw an interesting blurb >that stated that if you have larger than a 32MB disk, "share" will be >installed automatically. Now I know a new feature of 4.0 is to support >disk partitions larger than 32 MB but........ Is the new version truely >allowing more than 65535 total sectors or is it playing some "hidden" >games with the "share" facility to make you beleive you have one big >partition ? Any information is appreciated. I think the announcement said that the sector addresses were now 32 bits, rather than 16, which is why DOS 3.x won't read the new file systems. Doesn't sound like a game to me. What, exactly, is the share facility, anyway? Chuck
boerner@ut-emx.UUCP (Brendan B. Boerner) (07/28/88)
In article <6065@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: >In article <611@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: >> >> Has anyone installed PC-DOS 4.0 yet ? I saw an interesting blurb From reading the book which deals with OS/2 (I think it's called "Inside OS/2" oddly enough, but my copy is at home so I'm not sure) by Gordon Letwin, Microsoft chief operating systems architect, DOS 4.0 was a version which was sold to OEMs for the purpose of developing specialized packages for selling to a customer. OS/2 is DOS v5.0. The impression I got was that DOS 4.0 was not for sale to the general public. Brendan Disclaimer: This is all from a book I read about 2 months ago. If you want to make sure of what is right and what is not, go read the book.
mintz@hpindda.HP.COM (Ken Mintz) (07/28/88)
> I saw an interesting blurb that stated that if you have larger than a 32MB > disk, "share" will be installed automatically. The blurb that was posted here said: "SHARE is automatically installed if the user has >32Mb p a r t i t i o n s", not (partitioned) disks. Ken Mintz
stever@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Imants Golts) (07/28/88)
Whatever "Inside OS/2" says about DOS 4.0 is now seemingly outdated by IBM's offering of PC-DOS 4.0. It is my understanding that Microsoft has offered MS-DOS 4.0 for quite a while to OEM's in Europe primarily as a multitasking operating system. This MS-DOS 4.0 is not the PC-DOS 4.0 now being offered by IBM. From a recent blurb in a trade paper Microsoft will now release their own version of the IBM PC-DOS 4.0 as MS-DOS 4.0. However, this second MS-DOS 4.0 will not be offered in the stores, but will be available only through OEM's. So I will have to go to AST to get it since that is the machine I have. So the question is, will the new MS-DOS 4.0 have undocumented multi-tasking? (I doubt it since multitasking is the intended domain of OS/2 where it is designed into the OS from the start, and IBM and MS would certainly want some reason for the customer to go to OS/2!) And what is Microsoft going to call the old (multi-tasking) MS-DOS 4.0? Anyone at Microsoft willing to give a definitive answer to: "Will the real MS-DOS 4.0 please stand up?" ? --sdr
john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) (07/28/88)
In article <4530@ut-emx.UUCP>, boerner@ut-emx.UUCP (Brendan B. Boerner) writes: > In article <6065@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: > >In article <611@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: > >> > The impression I got was that DOS 4.0 was not for sale to the general > public. > All the sources I've seen indicate its available on your dealers shelves now. I havn't called around yet but intend to do so soon. Infoworld has had some good write ups the past few weeks. John -- John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john 1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: wa3wbu!john@uunet.UU.NET Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P
brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) (07/29/88)
In article <6065@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: <In article <611@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: <> <> Has anyone installed PC-DOS 4.0 yet ? I saw an interesting blurb <>that stated that if you have larger than a 32MB disk, "share" will be <>installed automatically. Now I know a new feature of 4.0 is to support <>disk partitions larger than 32 MB but........ Is the new version truely <>allowing more than 65535 total sectors or is it playing some "hidden" <>games with the "share" facility to make you beleive you have one big <>partition ? Any information is appreciated. <What I would like to know is if they will allow for 2K clusters. Large <partitions sound nice but I am not looking forward to 8K blocks! I just did a check on my 70 MB drive, split into 40 and 30, using MS-DOS 3.31. It supports > 32 MB and it used 2K clusters. I suspect that MS/PC-DOS 4.00 will also use 2K clusters. -- harvard-\ att!terminus--\ Mr. Video ucbvax!uwvax.................!nicmad!brown rutgers-/ att-/ decvax--/
reese@pdnag1.uucp (0000-Don Reese(0000)) (07/29/88)
In article <611@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes:
_>_ _ _ _ _ _ _H_a_s_ _a_n_y_o_n_e_ _i_n_s_t_a_l_l_e_d_ _P_C_-_D_O_S_ _4_._0_ _y_e_t_ _?
Yes we have seen the announcement posted here, and yes I belive most of us
can read, but it appears that many can not understand the question! Has
anyone actually installed DOS 4.0 yet? If so, does it live up to the
product announcement? Should we all wait for version 4.X.X to fix the
bugs?
--
Don Reese uunet!pdn!pdnag1!reese | The most merciful thing in the
Paradyne Corporation Phone: (813) 530-8361 | world ... is the inability of the
P.O. Box 2826 Mail Stop LF-207 | human mind to correlate all its
Largo, FL 34649-2826 | contents. - H. P. LovecraftRalf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (07/29/88)
In article <3866@pdn.UUCP>, reese@pdnag1.uucp (0000-Don Reese(0000)) writes: }anyone actually installed DOS 4.0 yet? If so, does it live up to the }product announcement? Has anyone else noticed the 7/25 _InfoWorld_ cover story on DOS 4.0's shell? The text and captions say the shell is text-based, but both photos show graphics icons, menu "buttons", check marks, etc.... Sure looks like it's running in graphics mode (assuming the photos really are of the DOS 4.0 shell and not the Presentation Manager....). -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I |Ducharm's Axiom: If you view your problem closely enough claimed something?| you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.
toma@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (07/29/88)
In article <3866@pdn.UUCP> reese@pdnag1.UUCP (0000-Don Reese) writes: >[...] If so, does it live up to the >product announcement? Should we all wait for version 4.X.X to fix the >bugs? Remember DOS 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0? If history is any factor, wait for 4.1! Tom Almy (a user of 3.3) toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM Standard Disclaimer Applies
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (07/29/88)
In article <3301@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM>, stever@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Imants Golts) writes: > > Whatever "Inside OS/2" says about DOS 4.0 is now seemingly outdated by IBM's > offering of PC-DOS 4.0. It is my understanding that Microsoft has > offered MS-DOS 4.0 for quite a while to OEM's in Europe primarily > as a multitasking operating system. This MS-DOS 4.0 is not the > PC-DOS 4.0 now being offered by IBM. True. "DOS 4.0" was an internal name for what was sold as a special OEM product. I don't believe that those OEMs retailed it as "DOS 4" because that would confuse their customers. To the end user, DOS 4 looked like DOS 3, and I'm sure was sold as that. Since the name "DOS 4" never hit the streets on a product, IBM felt free to use that for the next DOS upgrade. Nothing like a little confusion to make one's day. My personal theory is that IBM did it because one of their employees has a rival OS/2 book out that doesn't mention DOS 4.0 ( :-) ) > So the question is, will the new MS-DOS 4.0 have undocumented > multi-tasking? (I doubt it since multitasking is the intended > domain of OS/2 where it is designed into the OS from the start, > and IBM and MS would certainly want some reason for the customer to > go to OS/2!) > > And what is Microsoft going to call the old (multi-tasking) MS-DOS 4.0? No, MS-DOS 4.0 and PC-DOS 4.0 have no multitasking. They're derived from the 3.x lineage. The lack of multitasking isn't mainly a matter of wanting people to go to OS/2 - multitasking is very limited in a DOS environment because of the lack of memory, the lack of protection, and the inability to move programs around in memory once they've started. This last also effectively precludes swapping. OS/2 of course multitasks in protect mode and doesn't multitask within real mode (although it does multitask BETWEEN real and protect mode. Lotsa late nights here) As for the OEM product, I don't know what we call it when we discuss it with OEMs, but I guess we'll figure something out. Gordon Letwin Microsoft
leefi@microsoft.UUCP (Lee Fisher) (07/30/88)
Recently, the question arose: > Anyone at Microsoft willing to give a definitive answer to: > "Will the real MS-DOS 4.0 please stand up?" ? People are confused about the OLD version of MS-DOS 4.0 (mentioned in various places, most notably Gordon Letwin's book, `Inside OS/2'), and the NEW version of MS-DOS 4.00 (recently announced on 7/19/88). Since they are differenct products, but they have the SAME version, people are confused (as was I). OK, I'll try to give a definitive answer, but please be sure to read my disclaimer at the end.... The OLD (multi-tasking) MS-DOS 4.0 was only released to a few OEMs in Europe. I don't believe that it will be supported (i.e., new releases of this product), although I don't know this for sure. If I had any say in the matter (I don't), I'd suggest that the OEMs that are using this old product move up to OS/2, since it gives much better multi- tasking support. The NEW (recently announced) MS-DOS 4.00 is based on the MS-DOS 3.3 sources. This new MS-DOS 4.00 does NOT contain any of the multi-tasking abilities that the older named MS-DOS 4.00 had. In contrast, the OLD MS-DOS 4.0 was based on older MS-DOS sources, something like MS-DOS 3.1 or 3.2. These multi-tasking features were not added to 3.3 and finally this recent 4.0. If anything, the multi-tasking code was inspiration for OS/2 (which, to make things more confusing, was initially named DOS 5). Hope this helps. -Lee ________ 01001100 Lee Fisher, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA. 01000101 leefi@microsof.beaver.washington.EDU 01000101 leefi%microsof@uw-beaver.ARPA leefi@microsof.UUCP 01000110 {decvax,decwrl,sco,sun,trsvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!microsof!leefi 01001001 DISCLAIMER: My opinions are my *OWN*, not those of my employer!
leefi@microsoft.UUCP (Lee Fisher) (08/01/88)
In article <22f07270@ralf>, Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > > Has anyone else noticed the 7/25 _InfoWorld_ cover story on DOS 4.0's > shell? The text and captions say the shell is text-based, but both > photos show graphics icons, menu "buttons", check marks, etc.... Sure > looks like it's running in graphics mode (assuming the photos really are > of the DOS 4.0 shell and not the Presentation Manager....). The MS-DOS 4.00 Shell looks much like the PM shell when on an EGA or VGA (and perhaps the 8514/a, although I'm not sure), coming up in EGA graphics mode. It has all those icons for files and directories and such. On a CGA or monochrome system, it comes up in 80x25 text mode, not in graphics mode. The interface is similar, but no graphics. The design goal was to come up with a user interface that looks like the PM environment, allowing users to have an easy transition from MS-DOS to MS OS/2, and all that. Please note my disclaimer, below. -Lee ________ 01001100 Lee Fisher, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA. 01000101 leefi@microsof.beaver.washington.EDU 01000101 leefi%microsof@uw-beaver.ARPA leefi@microsof.UUCP 01000110 {decvax,decwrl,sco,sun,trsvax,uunet,uw-beaver}!microsof!leefi 01001001 My opinions are my *OWN*, not those of my employer!
geoff@eagle_snax.UUCP ( R.H. coast near the top) (08/04/88)
Is anyone (IBM, Microsoft, third party) coming up with
any kind of a toolkit to build MS-DOS 4.00 Shell compatible
applications? "Compatible" in the visual sense: it would be
nice to be able to build an application which could be
started from the shell and would appear to be a simple
extension of it - using the same color selections, help
style, graphics if available, etc. - without the overhead
of running MS-Windows (which, I gather, has one or two
glitches when used with 4.0).
When I first got the IBM press announcement I was told that
IBM would be releasing such a toolkit, but in reading
it through I couldn't see any such commitment. Can anyone
clarify matters?
Geoff
#include <std/disclaimer>
--
Geoff Arnold, Sun Microsystems |
PC Distrib. Sys. (home of PC-NFS) | "Minx?"
UUCP:{hplabs,decwrl...}!sun!garnold|
ARPA:geoff@sun.com | (from Infocom's "Beyond Zork")chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (08/05/88)
In article <612@wa3wbu.UUCP>, john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: :> In article <4530@ut-emx.UUCP>, boerner@ut-emx.UUCP (Brendan B. Boerner) writes: :> > In article <6065@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes: :> > >In article <611@wa3wbu.UUCP> john@wa3wbu.UUCP (John Gayman) writes: :> > >> :> > The impression I got was that DOS 4.0 was not for sale to the general :> > public. :> > :> :> All the sources I've seen indicate its available on your dealers :> shelves now. I havn't called around yet but intend to do so soon. Infoworld :> has had some good write ups the past few weeks. :> :> John :> :> :> :> -- :> John Gayman, WA3WBU | UUCP: uunet!wa3wbu!john :> 1869 Valley Rd. | ARPA: wa3wbu!john@uunet.UU.NET :> Marysville, PA 17053 | Packet: WA3WBU @ AK3P At least in the Dallas area, DOS 4.0 is supposed to be available on _MY_ dealers' shelves sometime between the end of August and the end of September. And my order has been in since before the announcement. Charles Marslett chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us STB Systems, Inc. Wordmark Systems etc.
ir332@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (Jeff Miller) (08/12/88)
I am trying to install DOS 4.0 on an AMT 386, but am having no
success getting expanded memory to work. According to the
"documentation" with DOS 4.0, the driver XMAEM.SYS emulates
expanded memory with any extended memory in the 386.
But when I include DEVICE=XMAEM.SYS in my config file, I get the
message "this system unit not supported". Then the
DEVICE=XMA2EMS.SYS driver also complains, to the effect that there
is no expanded memory.
I have tried various permutations of RAMPage & RAMvantage cards
setting up various amounts of conventional, extended, and expanded
memory, all to no avail.
Anyone have any ideas what I am doing wrong? Thanks in advance.
Jeff Miller BITNET: jomiller@ucsd
U. C. San Diego Internet: jomiller@ucsd.edu
Dept Psychology, C-009 ARPA: ir332@sdcc6.ucsd.edu
La Jolla, CA 92093 Ma Bell or clone: 619-534-2996stever@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Imants Golts) (08/14/88)
>I am trying to install DOS 4.0 on an AMT 386, but am having no >success getting expanded memory to work. According to the >"documentation" with DOS 4.0, the driver XMAEM.SYS emulates >expanded memory with any extended memory in the 386. >....Anyone have any ideas what I am doing wrong? Thanks in advance. Maybe what you are doing wrong is trying to install (IBM?) DOS 4.0 on an AMT 386 (clone?). As I understand it, to get DOS 4.0 to run real right on your machine you are supposed to get it from your vendor who has adapted DOS 4.0 to his machine using MS's binary adaption kit. In other words, get (AMT) DOS 4.0. Maybe (IBM) DOS 4.0 does run correctly on some clones, but it seems to run not real well on even IBM machines. Maybe it is better to wait for 4.01? In the meantime, it would be useful to compile a list of clones that (IBM) DOS 4.0 will run on while we wait for the the clone vendors to support it. So, has anyone had an experience with running (IBM) DOS 4.0 on an AST/286 Premium? Or does any know whether AST is going to support DOS 4.0 on its machines and when? ---steve rogers
merat@radix (Merat Bagha) (12/04/88)
I remember reading here about problems and bugs in PC & MS DOS 4.0. Anyone have a list of such bugs? Any idea on when the new release is to appear? -- Merat -- Merat Bagha ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radix MicroSystem, Inc. | tektronix!ogcvax!verdix!radix!merat 19545 NW Von Neumann Drive | OR decvax!decwrl!mipos3!omepd!radix!merat Beaverton, Oregon 97006 | OR merat%radix@omepd.intel.com Phone: (503)690-1229 | _____________________________________________________________________________
spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) (12/16/88)
In article <74@radix> merat@radix.UUCP (Merat Bagha) writes: > >I remember reading here about problems and bugs in PC & MS DOS 4.0. >Any idea on when the new release is to appear? MS DOS 4.01 is out and _claims_ to fix many bugs. I haven't tried it. +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Joel Spolsky | bitnet: spolsky@yalecs.bitnet uucp: ...!yale!spolsky | | | internet: spolsky@cs.yale.edu voicenet: 203-436-1483 | +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ #include <disclaimer.h>
ganymede@crl.UUCP (Jeff Bennington) (06/07/89)
I am running DOS 4.0 on an Everex clone, and I can't seem to be able to do a screen dump.. when I hit the PrtScr key, nothing seems to happen. I know the printer (HP Laser printer) works with my setup, as I use it a lot with various software packages.. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Jeff crl!ganymede@pacbell.com or pacbell!crl!ganymede@att.att.com
hovanes@db.UUCP (Kenneth Hovanes) (06/08/89)
In article <8906062013.AA00332@crl.UUCP>, ganymede@crl.UUCP (Jeff Bennington) writes: > > I am running DOS 4.0 on an Everex clone, and I can't seem > to be able to do a screen dump.. when I hit the PrtScr key, nothing > seems to happen. I know the printer (HP Laser printer) works > with my setup, as I use it a lot with various software packages.. Make sure you have run the graphics.com routine. From the dos prompt run graphics. This will enable you to dump the text and CGA screen to a printer. I am not sure how this will work with a Laser Printer. And it does not work on the EGA screen. By the way does DOS 4.0 work at all or is it useless?? Make sure you are holding the shift-key or the ctrl-key when you press PrtScr. ________________________________________________________________________________ ____________ |When Hydrogen U played / ---- /| |Oxygen Tech, the game / --/ / | |had just begun. Hydrogen / ____/ / | Kenneth Hovanes, Informix Analyst |racked up two fast points /___________/ /|| Intergraph Corporation |Oxygen still had none. | |/ || One Madison Park |Oxygen scored a single | /| | / | Huntsville, AL 35816 |goal and thus it did | | || /| (205) 772-7938 |remain Hydrogen 2, | | ||/ ! |Oxygen 1, called because | | | / |of rain. (unknown) | __!__ | / !_________________________ !___________!/ UUCP: uunet!ingr!db!hovanes ________________________________________________________________________________